QuoteReplyTopic: Dying a Mysterious Death @ the BO?? Posted: September 24 2010 at 1:55pm

ANOTHER CASE of "a MOVIE SO GOOD THEY RE-SCHEDULED ITs RELEASE MULTIPLE TIMES," CASE 39 WAS ACTUALLY SHOT in 2006, FINALLY REACHING SCREENS HERE in the U.S. ABOUT 4 YEARS AFTER IT WAS FIRST "IN the CAN." IN the MEANTIME, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN "PRE-RELEASED" in SEVERAL FOREIGN COUNTRIES, to LESS-THAN-STERLLAR RESULTS (B.O. MoJo LINK)...

STARRING OSCAR WINNER-for-a-MOVIE-NOBODY-SAW RENEE ZELLWEGER and 2009 WORST SCREEN COUPLE "CO-WINNER" BRADLEY COOPER, THIS LITTLE GEM of a HORROR MOVIE (OR IS THAT "GERM of a HORRIBLE MOVIE"??) FOCUSES on a SOCIAL WORKER WHOSE YOUNG CHARGE SEEMS to BE the CAUSE of MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS, MURDERS and "UNEXPLAINED DEATHS." AS the PLOT SICKENS, RENEE and BRADLEY OH-SO-SLOWLY BEGIN to REALIZE the CHILD IS SOMEHOW CURSED...

SPEAKING of CURSED, CASE 39 FOLLOWED in the FOOTSTEPS of MOST EVERY OTHER LONG-DELAYED MOVIE RELEASE, FINDING FAVOR with NEITHER MOVIE CRITICS NOR MOVIE-GOERS. AND THAT MAY BE the SCARIEST THING ABOUT the WHOLE PROJECT...

When the trailer for this showed before Devil, I heard someone say, "This (referring to Case 39) will probably be better than Devil." I was rolling my eyes, but I could see why. The trailer actually makes the movie look good, but that just shows people can make a bad movie look good through slick editing.

Let Me In won't also get a forum here. It currently has a 100% on RT and is second to The Social Network as being the best-reviewed film of the year. Don't underestimate Matt Reeves and his greatness nor Chloe Moretz. Many critics have said it was even better than the original film!

Okay, MWG, do yourself a favor: Go back and check all your past posts in which you jumped in claiming "oh no, according to RT, it's at 100% (based on 3 to 10 reviews)", then actually check those movies in question to see what rating they have now. Then get back to us about how declaring a movie is good based on 3 to 12 reviews is a good idea, anywhere but in the alternate reality you seem to live in...

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Give me specifics, BHB. You know I can't work with "go look back at..."

Here's how my logic works: If there are 10 critics giving a "perfect" score to a certain movie, you can see a pattern going on. Thus, basing on consistency, you can make an educated guess that most critics will like the movie...

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Sorry, MWG, I've gotta side with BHB on this one -- It is actually quite common for favorable early reviews on a movie at RT to be misleading as to the film's final score. I suspect this is because early reviews at RT tend to come from "Internet Critics" who have less stringent standards of criticism than "mainstream media" reviewers. The reverse, however -- early reviews being negative and the eventual score moving upward -- is truly rare. In the end, BHB's point about waiting 'till a certain number of crix have chimed in before making a guess as to a film's quality, makes sense to me...

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou can vote in polls in this forum